10 Maintenance and Asset Management


 

Summary

Achievements

  • All authorities are on target for principal and non-principal road maintenance.
  • 3 Transport Asset Management Plans (TAMPS) completed, 8 TAMPS drafted.
  • All Greater Manchester Authorities have been successful in increasing the use of existing resources for programmed and preventative maintenance operations.
  • Most Greater Manchester authorities have completed or are nearing completion of bridge strengthening programmes to ensure 40 tonne loading capacity on the entire Primary Route Network as per EU Regulations.
  • Some authorities have used Prudential Borrowing to fund ‘Invest to Save’ to reduce trip claims.

Our issues and future priorities:

  • To ensure that maintenance programmes continue to offer good value for money and meet the strategic aims of the Greater Manchester Maintenance Strategy

And to achieve these we will:

  • Complete TAMPs in all authorities
  • Continue to undertake bridge strengthening work in order to meet EU regulations
  • Develop long term investment programmes demonstrating an optimum level of expenditure on headline intervention types for each asset group
  • Use condition data and broader value management processes prior to political consideration of maintenance programmes.
  • Review maintenance programmes annually, often to realign maintenance schemes with other highway improvement or construction activities
  • Develop common approaches, for example to valuation, service levels (including replacements for the previous Best Value indicators), cost models and forecasting.

10.0.1 The vision of the Maintenance Strategy is to reverse the historical trend of deterioration of Greater Manchester’s transport infrastructure and provide a network that is safe, fit for purpose, attractive and sustainable both environmentally and financially.

10.0.2 This section demonstrates how Greater Manchester is meeting it's maintenance and asset management objectives.  Each Greater Manchester authority has detailed  progress that they are making with relation to Transport Asset Management Plans (TAMPS) and these can be seen through the Greater Manchester LTP website, www.gmltp.co.uk.

10.0.3 Greater Manchester Urban Traffic Control has also also produced an asset management plan for traffic information systems.  All authorities have also produced Rights of Way Improvement Plans.

10.0.4 Currently, three Local Authorities have TAMPs in place. In addition the GM UTC have produced an Asset Management Plan for the physical assets within the County’s traffic management system and the GMTU have a well established inventory system for automatic counters. All of the remaining 7 Local Authorities and the GMPTE have completed draft TAMPs, with a view to continuing practical development of key elements.

10.0.5 Although individual GM Authorities are producing their own TAMPs, all have recognised the need for consistency across boundaries in developing new methods and approaches in line with the GM Maintenance Strategy.

10.0.6 As can be seen in Chapter 13, road, footway and public rights of way condition BVPIs all show improvements in condition 14 ‘LTP2 Indicators’.  All 10 authorities have met or exceeded their milestone targets for the condition of principal roads where structural maintenance should be considered.

10.0.7 As a result of Best Value Reviews on footway maintenance Salford, Manchester and Stockport have used prudential borrowing to implement Invest to Save programmes for their footways. See Case Study 25 ‘ Salford's Highway Investment Programme ’ for more detail. The primary aim of these programmes is to improve the safety of the network in the short, medium and long term whilst reducing future steady state maintenance costs. The savings anticipated are twofold:

  • In the medium term through structural maintenance on the footways through reductions in the number of trip claims
  • In the longer term it is possible to plan for a shift towards more cost effective preventative treatments to footways.

10.0.8 Other initiatives that have been carried out in Greater Manchester include:

  • Trafford MBC have introduced hand held capture devices and this has enabled every street in the borough to be assessed twice a year.
  • All GM Authorities have been successful in increasing the use of existing resources for programmed and preventative maintenance operations.
  • The Oldham Council retaining walls reconstruction programme (see case study 24)
  • Improved inventory and data analysis has enabled more robust management of risks of structural failure of street lighting columns.  In Manchester, the PFI arrangement has enabled the replacement of nearly 37,000 lighting columns and all new lighting systems are certified to EN 13201.
  • Most Greater Manchester authorities have completed or are nearing completion of bridge strengthening programmes to ensure 40 tonne loading capacity on the entire Primary Route Network as per EU Regulations.
  • Manchester City Council has a PFI in place for the management  of lighting stock.

Case Study 24

Oldham Council’s Retaining Wall Reconstruction Programme

 
A635 Holmfirth Road retaining wall - before.JPG
Retaining wall on the A635 Holmfirth Road, Saddleworth – before (Popup full image) 
A635 Holmfirth Road retaining wall - after.jpg
..and after treatment (Popup full image) 

1. Introduction

The topography of Oldham is contrasting. To the west are the relatively low-lying areas of Failsworth, Chadderton and Shaw, whilst to the east lie the local centres of Uppermill, Delph and Greenfield in the foothills of Saddleworth Moor. It is in this part of the Borough that a substantial number of major arterial roads have been built into the hillside supported by traditional drystone walls, many of which are well over 100 years old, and extending to 60km of over 1.2m retained height.  It became apparent that in order to make a significant impact on the estimated 21km of failed or falling retaining walls identified in Oldham’s retaining wall GIS data base, a radical strategy was required.

2. Problems and Issues prior to implementation / Current Problems and Issues

In common with other Pennine authorities, many of its rural roads are supported by aging drystone walls built well over 150 years ago and not meant to take highway loading. As a consequence, in the 1980s/90s, Oldham was experiencing an increasing number of walls physically collapsing, resulting in a significant danger to the public and associated delays and disruption.

3. Approach taken

Initially the reconstruction of these retaining walls was undertaken on an ad-hoc basis through the TPP process. However it became clear that the scale of the problem needed to be quantified. This was achieved through the development of a bespoke GIS retaining wall database developed in the mid - late1990s. An inspection and condition assessment of all walls in the borough was undertaken by independent consultants and a GIS database developed. This enabled Oldham’s engineers to clearly see, interactively on OS maps, the location and condition of retaining walls in the borough. This data provided the basis for Oldham’s major scheme funding bid in 2001.

Oldham invited Government Officers to visit the Borough to see for themselves the continuing problems they were facing. Subsequently a Supplementary Major Maintenance Bid for £14 million to undertake a four year comprehensive retaining wall reconstruction programme was approved in December 2001. Works commenced on site in the Autumn of 2002 and continued successfully until 2006.

The prospect of continued funding over a number of years, gave  an opportunity to review design, procurement and delivery strategies and to adopt “Rethinking Construction” and “Partnership” principles to the whole process.  Following early contractor involvement, a framework type contract was developed based on a modified form of the NEC Engineering and Construction Contract Option B - Priced Contract with Bill of Quantities  The successful contractors were Dew Construction based in Oldham and Eric Wright Construction from Preston.

Continuity and a consistent level of funding was essential for this framework approach to be successful. It provided confidence to the contractors that subject to performance in relation to time, cost and quality they were guaranteed continuity of work for a four year period. It also enabled Oldham’s engineers to plan ahead with confidence and commit staff and resources to a long term programme.

4. Funding Sources

£14Million over four years from 2002 - 2006, fully funded through the LTP

5. Targets and Objectives Met

The benefits achieved were:

  1. reduced lead-in times from design to construction;
  2. simplified procedures resulting from the application of a “system build” approach to retaining wall design and construction;
  3. maximium benefits of economies of scale by providing continuity of work for contractors;
  4. increased commitment by contractors due to the longer term contract and high levels of workmanship; ;
  5. longer term relationships developed between client and contractor;
  6. a high degree of price certainty due to the pricing mechanism used
  7. flexibility of contract throughout the Borough and for a number of retaining wall solutions without retendering; and
  8. improved safety and reduced disruption for the public.

A sustained level of investment over the four years has successfully helped to reconstruct over 6km of failed or failing highway retaining wall within Oldham. It has made a significant impact into the backlog of wall repairs in the Borough. The procurement strategy adopted maximised the engineering resources available and early contractor involvement ensured that the strategy was acceptable to the construction market.

The works undertaken to date will provide a reliable highway network for all users over many years to come with reconstructed walls being designed to cater for current highway loading.  In particular they will ensure the accessibility of public transport in the outlying rural areas of Saddleworth.   Environmental considerations were incorporated within the works specification by the incentive to reuse recovered masonry from existing walls and the detailing of masonry facework on the new walls was designed to replicate the drystone heritage of the Saddleworth area. Wherever possible, improvements to the general highway in the vicinity of collapsed sections of wall were undertaken including the inclusion of, or improvements to, street lighting, highway drainage, pedestrian facilities and carriageway surfacing. This holistic approach will assist in moving towards a planned and preventative maintenance regime rather than the historic reactive approach.

However, Oldham still has a significant number of retaining walls requiring repair and reconstruction.  A joint bid for Major Maintenance funding in collaboration with the neighbouring authorities of Rochdale, Tameside and Stockport is currently being prepared.